🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_preferences
Jump to content

Mating preferences

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mating preferences are qualities that one desires in a romantic or sexual partner. Research across many domains, such as evolutionary biology, psychology, and anthropology, shows that humans display both widely shared (consensual) preferences– like preferences for kindness, intelligence, and health– as well as sex-differentiated preferences shaped by ancestral selection pressures. These preferences are understood within the framework of sexual selection (first proposed by Charles Darwin in 1871)[1] and more contemporary theories that draw on evolutionary explanations, cultural variation, and evidence from actual mating behaviors. These theories account for the variation in desires for certain traits, the divergence of preference between men and women, and the adoption of short-term vs long-term mating strategies. Together, these approaches explain the origins, adaptive functions, and real-word outcomes of human mate preferences.

Historical Background

[edit]

Darwin's Theory of Sexual Selection

[edit]

One of the earliest theories posited to explain mate preferences was Darwin's Theory of Sexual Selection.[1] This theory came about when he noticed that certain characteristics (most famously, the feathers of a male peacock) appeared to have no survival value. Unsatisfied with his theory of natural selection as the primary driver of evolution, he proposed that sexual selection was at play.[1] Namely, Darwin suggested two mechanisms of this evolutionary process.

The first mechanism, intrasexual selection, describes the competition with same-sex others for access to mates.[1] This can include directly antagonistic interactions, such as physical contests and fights, or indirect interactions like competition for territory or high status positions.[2] As a result of success in such competitions, the victors are able to mate, meaning that their heritable traits are passed down to offspring with greater frequency.[3] Those who lost do not gain access to mates and have less reproductive success. Over many generations, this differential reproductive success causes the qualities that contribute to winning these competitions (like upper body strength, formidability, or intelligence, for example) to become more common in the population. This pattern shapes preferences because individuals who choose mates with successful, competitive traits have a greater chance of producing children who survive and are reproductively successful themselves. As a result, preferences for such advantageous traits are passed down along with the traits themselves.

The second mechanism, intersexual selection (also called epigamic selection), represents one sex's propensity to prefer and, in turn, select specific members of the opposite sex that embody preferred characteristics.[1] Because desired qualities (like physical attractiveness or intelligence, for instance) are notably heritable, individuals who select mates who display such qualities are more likely to have children who also possess them. Over time, this process increases the frequency of preferred traits in the population and also strengthens the preferences themselves (offspring inherit both the desired traits and the preference for them). Thus, this preferential mate choice directly influences one's reproductive success.

Both processes work together to select for qualities that enhance an individual's reproductive success, favoring characteristics that improve mating opportunities (even if those characteristics do not directly improve survival) and, importantly, shaping what we deem to be preferable in a mate.[1] These mechanisms have been substantiated across virtually every species that reproduces sexually,[3] highlighting sexual selection theory as a pervasive evolutionary force.

Consensual Mate Preferences

[edit]

During human evolution, there was a selection pressure to pursue mates who had traits that could yield reproductive success. Those who successfully mated with reproductively fit individuals passed their genes onto the next generation with greater frequency. This sexual selection strengthened the presence of the reproductively beneficial traits themselves as well as the preference for them. The resulting consensual mate preferences refer to the widely shared, cross-cultural judgments regarding the desirable mate qualities that most people, regardless of sex or culture, tend to value.

Physical Qualities

[edit]

Physical Attractiveness & Symmetry

[edit]

Physical attractiveness is highly desired among men and women because it functions as a cue to fertility and health. Moreover, a very attractive mate would likely produce offspring that are also attractive, enhancing their fitness.[4][5][6][7] Though men tend to prioritize and prefer physical attractiveness more so than women, it is still a quality that is highly desired by both sexes.[8][9]

Symmetry is one of the many aspects that factors into attractiveness for both men and women.[10] Both facial and bodily symmetry are considered to be very attractive because they essentially act as a certificate of good health and reproductive potential (developmental stability, genetic diversity, and parasite resistance, for example).[11][12][13] Fluctuating asymmetry, or deviation from perfect bilateral evenness, can indicate poor genetic quality and is thus deemed undesirable in a mate.[14] Preference for symmetry in a mate is observed cross-culturally, indicating its robustness as a cue to good health.[15]

Evidence from Actual Mating Behavior
[edit]

Research shows that physically attractive individuals have better sex lives.[16] Symmetry in particular is a good predictor of the number of sex partners one has.[17] Furthermore, more symmetrical men tend to have their first intercourse at an earlier age than do less symmetrical men.[17]

Good Health

[edit]

A healthy appearance is very desirable in a mate because it can indicate a resilient body that is free from chronic illness/disease with a low exposure to pathogens.[18] Health is an important mate preference, as poor health can be passed onto offspring or to a partner and consequently decrease fitness.[2] Because aspects of health are genetically influenced, it is imperative that one chooses a healthy mate in order to increase the fitness of progeny, both directly and indirectly.[2][19]

Visible indicators of health include bilateral symmetry, skin condition, and sexual dimorphism.[20][10][21][22][23] For example, clear skin tone and complexion is broadly considered to be desirable in a mate, functioning as a signal of health and high quality genetics.[24] The presence of sexually dimorphic traits also indicates health, as both estrogen and testosterone (hormones that produce sexually dimorphic traits) are known immunosuppressants.[21][22] Because these hormones temporarily reduce immune function, only individuals with robust underlying health can afford to produce and maintain strongly sex-typical traits. Thus, a person with sexually dimorphic traits (like a small chin in females or a large jaw in males) signals good health– only those with high genetic quality would be able to develop such masculine or feminine qualities.[21][22][25][26][23]

Other Qualities

[edit]

Traits such as kindness, dependability, intelligence, and honesty are highly valued among men and women alike.[27][9][28] These traits are cues to adaptive behaviors that would highly benefit one's partner and family.

Kindness & Empathy

[edit]

Kindness, the quality of being nice or friendly, is consistently ranked as one of the top priorities in a mate.[29][9][28][8] Displays of kindness and empathy may indicate a tendency to cooperate with others and place a partner's needs relatively high in processes of decision-making. In addition, kindness can signal greater parenting ability.[30]

Intelligence

[edit]

Intelligence is also consistently ranked by men and women as a top priority for a mate.[29][9][28] Greater cognitive ability can help partners figure out the complex challenges that may arise when making decisions, managing a household, raising children, and solving everyday problems.

Dependability

[edit]

Dependability is preferred by men and women because it communicates a partner's likelihood of maintaining commitment throughout the relationship as well as remaining steady and reliable during difficult times.[29][9][28]

Social Status

[edit]

Many people prefer a mate who maintains a high social status within their community.[31][32][33] A mate who is highly respected by others in their social network would be able to gain access to resources and, in turn, confer upon their family.[31][32][33]

Love

[edit]

Love, the deep emotional bond that underpins long-term romantic relationships, is consistently valued across cultures.[34] It is a human universal[35] and has been suggested to act as a commitment device designed to promote stable pair bonding, cooperation in parenting, and reproductive success.[36][37][38]

Honesty

[edit]

A mate's honesty is highly valued and preferred by both men and women.[29][9][28] Honesty, or the tendency to tell the truth, is a trait that can signal loyalty in many important domains. Honest behavior can reflect the general propensity to act transparently instead of manipulating or exploiting others.

Humor

[edit]

Humor, the quality of being funny or entertaining, is widely desired among men and women.[8] Research suggests that humor functions as an honest signal of cognitive capacity, creativity, and social intelligence– qualities that reflect fitness.[39][8]

Explanations for Consensual Preferences

[edit]

Relationship Satisfaction

[edit]

One prominent theory as to why these preferences are rated as very desirable and important for many people is their association with relationship satisfaction. This theory posits that some qualities (such as kindness or empathy) greatly contribute happiness within the relationship.[29] Unkind or unempathetic partners may decrease relationship satisfaction and, as a result, increase the likelihood of relationship dissolution. Other trivial qualities (such as good housekeeping skills) are deemed less important in a relationship simply because they don't have a significant effect on relationship satisfaction or maintenance.[29]

Evolutionary Biology

[edit]

Another theory as to why some qualities are consistently desired among men and women is the traits' association with reproductive investment capability.[29] Essentially, this theory states that mate qualities like physical attractiveness or intelligence are considered important and desirable because they are more greatly correlated with parental investment abilities than are traits like good housekeeping skills.[29] As a result, minor traits (such as good housekeeping skills) are not widely desired or prioritized. Ancestral humans who prioritized mate preferences that served proximate cues to reproductive investment capabilities were able to have more offspring and thus propagate their genes with a greater frequency.[29]

Both of these theories are not incompatible. They likely, in fact, work together to strengthen the importance of certain mate preferences from two different angles.

Sex-Differentiated Mate Preferences

[edit]

In ancestral environments, men and women faced different selection pressures. Women are highly constrained in their reproductive output because they are limited by gestation and lactation, therefore having significant obligatory parental investment.[40][41] Men do not have such constraints– they are only limited by the number of fertile mates they have access to and are thus able to sire several children in a year.[40][41] These asymmetries in parental investment led to differing optimal strategies for maximizing fitness and reproductive success.[40][41] As such, men and women evolved diverging mate preferences which remain prevalent to this day.

Women

[edit]

Short-Term Mating Preferences

[edit]
Physical Attractiveness: Masculinity
[edit]

For women, short-term mating (i.e., engagement in low-commitment sexual acts, such as a one-night stand) could be extremely costly due to obligatory parental investment (e.g., gestation, lactation, etc).[40][41] Because of this, women who engage in short-term mating are motivated to pursue men who have high genetic quality.[42][43] One indicator of high genetic quality is physical attractiveness and the presence of sexually dimorphic features.[25] Indeed, in short-term mating, women have exhibited stronger preferences for male physical attractiveness, such as facial symmetry and masculine features (large jaw, prominent eyebrows).[42][43]

These sexually dimorphic features are highly desired because they function as an honest immunocompetence handicap signal.[42][43] Masculinity acts as cue to testosterone exposure, which signals high genetic quality due to testosterone's immunosuppressant effects.[25] Because testosterone suppresses the immune system, only men with good immune systems would be able to develop these masculine secondary sex characteristics.[42][43] Therefore, women are attracted to such dimorphic features because they indicate high quality genes that would be passed onto offspring.[42][43]

It is proposed that this preference for sexually dimorphic features is stronger in short-term mating strategies because the male's high genetic quality is traded off for parental investment. Some evidence backs this up, as researchers have found links between high levels of masculinity and low levels of investment.[44] For instance, high testosterone men are less likely to get married, and when they do, they tend to have more marital problems and higher rates of divorce than low testosterone men.[44]

Preference for Masculinity & Local Pathogen Threat
[edit]

Local pathogen threat is a significant influence in female preference for a masculine partner.[45][46] Because the presence of masculine features in men is indicative of a good immune system, exposure to pathogen cues is shown to be associated with stronger preferences for male facial masculinity among women.[47] Across a variety of cultures, it has been found that pathogen load is positively correlated with importance of partner physical attractiveness.[45] This is further supported by data that reports females more strongly prefer masculinity in places with poorer health statuses, such as high mortality and disease rates.[46] It has also been found that women with high sensitivity to pathogen disgust exhibit stronger preferences for masculinity.[46]

Evidence from Actual Mating Behavior
[edit]

Indeed, it has been found that men who are more masculine tend to have a higher number of sexual partners.[48] Research shows that men with broad shoulders relative to hips (a highly sexually dimorphic quality correlated with testosterone) tend to lose their virginity at a younger age, have more sex mates, have more affairs, and have more sex with other people's mates as compared to men with lower shoulder-to-hip ratios.[49]

Functions of a Short-Term Mating Strategy
[edit]

Women may prefer to acquire a short term mate in some scenarios. There are 4 possible adaptive functions to preference for short-term mating strategies.[50]

One explanation is that she may need to acquire immediate resources, and mating with a man (with the ability to confer benefits) would secure those resources (for her and her children).

Secondly, she may wish to participate in short-term mating in order to acquire good genes for her future child. This is known as the Good Genes Hypothesis.[3] Some lines of evidence suggest that women prefer short-term mates when target mates have indicators of high genetic quality, such as facial symmetry, masculine features, and high physical attractiveness.[51][52][53][54][55][56] This is partly explained by the fact that short-term mating is a profitable mating tactic for highly masculine men, and research has found correlations between high levels of masculinity and low levels of romantic/parental investment.[57][58] Since men who have such cues of high genetic quality may be more inclined to engage in short-term mating, women who want to secure good genes for her offspring must also engage in short-term mating.[47]

Another explanation is that she may be evaluating a short term mate for a possible long-term relationship.

Lastly, she might engage in short term mating during acts of infidelity. In this case, a short-term mating strategy functions as a means to mate switch, an outcome that may occur following an extrapair copulation. Four variants of mate switching have been identified.[3]

  • First, a woman may engage in short-term mating in order to acquire a backup mate, acting as a sort of mate insurance if something were to happen to her primary mate.
  • Next, she may use short-term mating as a means to facilitate disinvestment in an existing mate.
  • Thirdly, a woman could engage in short-term mating in order to acquire a mate who offers greater benefits and fewer costs than her current mate.
  • Lastly, a woman may mate in the short-term as a means to evaluate her own mate value and determine whether or not more desirable mates exist in the mating market.

Long-Term Mating Preferences

[edit]
Resources & Financial Prospects
[edit]

A man's reproductive investment is highly tied to his ability to attain and confer benefits for the family.[59] Because women pay the enormous cost of pregnancy and child rearing, ancestral women needed to solve the problem of provisioning enough food for herself and her children. Given this, ancestral women would have placed extreme importance on a mate's ability to forage, hunt, and provide meat (i.e., give benefits to her and her offspring).[60] Today, this translates to a man's ability to bring in economic resources and provide for the family monetarily. Monetary privilege allows access to resources that may provide material and social advantages to offspring.[59][29] Indeed, many lines of evidence from various cultures suggest that women prefer men who possess economic resources and good financial prospects.[61][62][63][64][60][28]

Evidence from Actual Mating Behavior
[edit]

Multiple studies have shown that this preference occurs in real mating behavior: women are more likely to select mates who have greater ability to confer economic benefits. For example, speed dating studies have shown that women are more inclined to select mates who grew up in an affluent neighborhood and had higher levels of both education and income.[65] Another study found that women in Kenya preferentially select mates who have lots of land.[66] Indeed, married men consistently have higher levels of income than single men of the same age.[2] In addition, one cross-cultural study found that inadequate economic support was a frequent cause of divorce as reported by females.[67] Divorce due to a lack of economic support never occurred among males.[67]

Ambition, Industriousness, & Social Status
[edit]

In line with female preference for a mate's economic resources and financial prospects, women cross-culturally have shown preference for a mate's ambition, industriousness, and social status.[61][68] For example, one study found that women rated high-status men as significantly more attractive than lower-status men.[69] These qualities would have, again, signaled the ability of a mate to provide for a woman and her offspring.

Evidence from Actual Mating Behavior
[edit]

There is lots of evidence that this preference translates into real life mating behavior. For instance, mail-order brides from a variety of countries were more likely to select men who had higher levels of status and ambition.[70] Another study found that women were more likely to seek out mates who owned a car and placed importance on their career.[71]

Protection & Physical Formidability
[edit]

Because ancestral women were more susceptible to dangerous others, they evolved preferences for mates that signal both the ability and willingness to protect. Qualities such as dominance, a larger body size, physical formidability, athleticism, and bravery are all highly valued among women.[3] For example, women have shown strong preferences for males who are muscular and lean with a broad chest and V-shaped torso (broad shoulders relative to hips).[49] Many lines of evidence show that women strongly prefer tall men over short men because they are seen as more dominant and physically formidable.[72][73][74][75]

Evidence from Actual Mating Behavior
[edit]

Indeed, tall men are more likely to date, get responses on dating ads, and acquire highly attractive partners.[75][74] Also, men with a high shoulder-to-hip ratio are shown to have more sex partners.[49] Moreover, men who are perceived as dominant copulate earlier in life than their counterparts.[76]

Older Partner
[edit]

Cross-culturally, women have shown a strong preference for men who are older than themselves.[28][29][77] One prominent reason for this is that older men typically have greater economic security and social status than younger men.[77] Research has shown that women actually prefer a larger age gap than do men, with an average ideal preference of 3.42 years older.[27]

Evidence from Actual Mating Behavior
[edit]

Multiple studies have shown that age preferences are actualized in real-world relationships. For example, many women report having a partner older than themselves.[27][77] Consistently across cultures and centuries, women date and marry men who are a few years older than themselves.[77][28][78]

Costs and Benefits of a Long-Term Mating Strategy for Women
[edit]
Costs
[edit]

The primary cost of employing a long-term mating strategy among women is having to forgo short-term mating opportunities and the previously described benefits they might bring.[3]

Benefits
[edit]

There are many benefits of using a long-term mating strategy for women. Namely, a woman's long-term mate can secure status and resources for herself and her offspring.[3] Also, having a long-term mate can ensure the physical protection of herself and her family.[3] Lastly, employing a long-term mating strategy can ensure enhanced mating success of the offspring by means of the material and social benefits acquired from a father.[3]

Men

[edit]

Short-Term Mating Preferences

[edit]
Sexual Variety
[edit]

Men have evolved stronger preferences for sexual variety than women, mostly due to the fact that parental investment is not nearly as costly for men.[50] Men, then, should be highly motivated to acquire as many mates as possible– the only constraint to his reproductive success is the number of fertile mates he has access to.[40][41] As a result, studies show that men, moreso than women, express a strong desire for short-term mates and want a greater number of sexual partners.[50] Indeed, men in many countries maintain more permissive attitudes towards causal sex than do women.[79] In comparison to women, men prefer to have sex sooner and are more willing to loosen their preference standards while seeking casual sex.[50]

Evidence from Actual Mating Behavior
[edit]

A preference for sexual variety is actualized in men's real mating behavior in several ways. For example, men tend to feel less sexual regret than women– they are less likely to be upset following a causal hookup.[80][81][82] In addition, men are more likely than women to feel regret regarding missed sexual opportunities.[83] Substantially more men than women will agree to have sex with a stranger, a finding that has been replicated across many countries.[84][85][86] Cross-culturally, men solicit prostitutes far more than women do, with 99% of sex worker patrons being male.[3] Moreover, men often report that their ideal outcome of a short-term mating experience is more sex, while women describe their ideal outcome to be a romantic relationship.[3] On top of this, men have been shown to employ tactics of deception in order to obtain short-term sex, such as faking interest in a long-term romantic relationship.[87][88][3] Furthermore, married men are more likely than married women to have affairs (and with a greater number of partners)[2]. Findings in support of men's engagement in acts involving increased sexual variety have been replicated cross-culturally.[89][90][91]

Sexual Exploitability
[edit]

Men who employ a short-term mating strategy are more attracted to women who possess indicators of sexual exploitability.[92] Appearing to be immature, under the influence, flirtatious, sleepy, and wearing revealing clothing are preferred by men seeking casual sex because they are believed to be cues that a woman can be easily seduced.[92][3] Men who desire a short-term mate are substantially more attracted to these qualities than men seeking a long-term mate.[93] In fact, these sexual exploitability indicators are not preferred (and are found to be unattractive) by men employing a long-term mating strategy.[93]

Long-Term Mating Preferences

[edit]
High Reproductive Value
[edit]

Ancestral men who had successfully pursued a fertile mate passed down their genes with a higher frequency. As a result, men evolved preferences for cues that historically correlated with a woman's reproductive value[3]. Reproductive value is not directly observable in women due to concealed ovulation, so it must be inferred through visible qualities[94]. In fact, physical appearance contains lots of information about a person, like their age and health status[18]. Most men today are attracted to women who signal high reproductive value, inferred through her age and physically healthy/attractive appearance.[59][95][50][96]

Cues to Reproductive Value: Physical Attractiveness (Healthy & Youthful Appearance)
[edit]

Indicators of relative youth and health are substantial predictors of female attractiveness judgments by men.[59][97][98][3] Indeed, men reliably report preferences for a long-term mate who is beautiful and neotonous.[59][97][98][3]

Physical qualities considered attractive by men include traditionally feminine and youthful features, such as full lips, facial adiposity, small chin, thin jaws, high cheekbones, clear/supple skin, facial symmetry, and clear/large eyes.[59][95][50][99][49] These feminine facial features are believed to be associated with high estrogen levels, a hormone that is linked to fertility and tends to decline with age.[100]

Other physical qualities preferred by men are healthy hair, lively gait, bodily symmetry, and firm/symmetrical breasts.[59][95][50][96][49][101]

One prominent mate preference among men is a low waist-to-hip ratio (hourglass figure).[59][95][50][96][49] A low waist-to-hip ratio is highly important as it is one of the best visible cues to fecundity.[4][102] In fact, it has been found that congenitally blind men show preference for a low waist-to-hip ratio in a mate, indicating that the hourglass figure is a robust indicator of reproductive value.[103]

Cues to Reproductive Value: Younger Partner
[edit]

Numerous studies point to the fact that men prefer a mate who is younger than themselves.[27][104][77] The ideal age for a mate according to one sample of men is approximately 2.66 years younger.[27]

Evidence from Actual Mating Behavior
[edit]

Many lines of evidence support the notion that men acquire mates who are physically attractive and youthful. Typically, men who are of high status are able to actualize their preferences and, in turn, secure the most attractive mates. Across different centuries and cultures, it has been found that men with high-income, high status jobs (kings, CEOs, famous actors and musicians, etc.) often acquire spouses and mistresses who are substantially younger and more physically attractive than the average woman.[105][106][107][108][104][77][109]

In addition, cross-cultural marriage statistics throughout time show that women are typically younger than their partners by anywhere from 3 to 10 years.[27][77][78][104] This age gap increases as men get older– the age of their mate becomes increasingly younger.[110] Furthermore, data from foreign bride purchases showed that men tended to select considerably younger mates for marriage.[111]

Other behavioral data also points to a preference fulfillment for younger mates among men. For example, in cultures that take part in bridewealth practices, the age of a potential wife impacts the amount of money spent, with younger wives getting higher amounts of money.[66] It has also been shown that men tend to spend more money on engagement rings for younger brides.[112] Research also indicates that mate guarding tactics are more strongly employed for younger women.[113]

Sexual Fidelity
[edit]

Sexual fidelity, or the propensity to remain sexually devoted to one's partner, is highly valued by men and regularly placed among their top priorities in a mate.[50][114][115] Such loyalty indicates a woman's commitment to the relationship, reducing the likelihood of partner defection.[3] Remaining sexually faithful is very desirable for men because it protects against the substantial fitness costs associated with betrayal, such as cuckoldry, thereby increasing paternity certainty.[59]

Costs and Benefits of a Long-Term Mating Strategy for Men
[edit]
Costs
[edit]

In line with the costs for women, a long-term mating strategy for men may be costly because he must relinquish other short-term sexual opportunities.[3]

Benefits
[edit]

There are many benefits to pursuing a long-term mating strategy for men. One benefit is that he may utilize a woman's lifetime reproductive means.[3] In doing so, a man may gain paternity certainty.[3][116] Furthermore, he may enhance the fitness of his offspring via parental investment and strengthen social power via his alliances with his partner's family.[117][50][116] Given the fact that many women require commitment prior to engaging in a sexual relationship, a man may benefit from employing a long-term mating strategy by simply increasing the chance of attaining a mate at all.[50][116]

Mate Preference Priorities

[edit]

Mate preference priorities are often measured using budget allocation, a method in which research participants are given a limited number of "dollars" they must distribute to various mate traits, a paradigm which forces them to make decisions about which characteristics are most important to them.[8] This method generally yields two categories of preferences: necessities and luxuries.

Necessities

[edit]

One study showed that, when given a small budget, people prioritize mate traits that were ancestrally significant for reproductive success.[8] These traits are thought to be necessities, meaning they are considered essential in a mate.

Cross-cultural and Sex-Differentiated Necessities

[edit]

The traits that were viewed as necessities differed among men and women in both Eastern and Western samples.[8]

  • Western women placed a higher priority on a partner having good financial prospects, a sense of humor, and a desire for children.
  • Western men viewed humor as a necessity.
  • Eastern women and men saw good financial opportunities as a necessity in a partner.
  • Eastern men rated a partner's religiosity as a necessity.

Consensual Necessities

[edit]

Despite the observed differences, men and women from various cultural backgrounds consistently placed a high value on kindness and physical attractiveness (though men did allocate a slightly higher amount toward attractiveness).[8]

Luxuries

[edit]

When given a large budget, participants allotted resources to traits considered luxuries– qualities that are desirable but nonessential in a partner.[8]

Cross-cultural and Sex-Differentiated Luxuries

[edit]
  • Western men tended to rate good financial prospects in a mate as a luxury.
  • Eastern men and women viewed humor as a luxury.
  • Eastern men and women, as well as Western men saw a partner's desire for children as a luxury.
  • Eastern women and Western women and men saw religiosity in a mate as a luxury.

Consensual Luxuries

[edit]

Regardless of sex or cultural background, the participants in this study frequently rated creativity and chastity as luxuries.[8]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d e f Darwin, Charles; Zimmer, Carl (2007). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (Concise ed.). New York: Plume. ISBN 978-0-452-28888-1.
  2. ^ a b c d e Buss, D. M. (2016). The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. New York: Basic Books.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Buss, David M.; Schmitt, David P. (2019). "Mate Preferences and Their Behavioral Manifestations". Annual Review of Psychology. 70: 77–110. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103408. ISSN 0066-4308. PMID 30230999.
  4. ^ a b Bovet, J.; Barkat-Defradas, M.; Durand, V.; Faurie, C.; Raymond, M. (2018). "Women's attractiveness is linked to expected age at menopause". Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 31 (2): 229–238. doi:10.1111/jeb.13214. ISSN 1010-061X. PMID 29178517.
  5. ^ Cornwell, R. Elisabeth; Perrett, David I. (2008-12-01). "Sexy sons and sexy daughters: the influence of parents' facial characteristics on offspring". Animal Behaviour. 76 (6): 1843–1853. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.031. ISSN 0003-3472.
  6. ^ Pflüger, Lena S.; Oberzaucher, Elisabeth; Katina, Stanislav; Holzleitner, Iris J.; Grammer, Karl (2012-11-01). "Cues to fertility: perceived attractiveness and facial shape predict reproductive success". Evolution and Human Behavior. 33 (6): 708–714. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.05.005. ISSN 1090-5138.
  7. ^ Rosenthal, G. G. (2017). Mate choice: the evolution of sexual decision making from microbes to humans. Princeton University Press.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Thomas, Andrew G.; Jonason, Peter K.; Blackburn, Jesse D.; Kennair, Leif Edward Ottesen; Lowe, Rob; Malouff, John; Stewart-Williams, Steve; Sulikowski, Danielle; Li, Norman P. (2020). "Mate preference priorities in the East and West: A cross-cultural test of the mate preference priority model". Journal of Personality. 88 (3): 606–620. doi:10.1111/jopy.12514. ISSN 1467-6494.
  9. ^ a b c d e f Lippa, Richard A. (2007-04-01). "The Preferred Traits of Mates in a Cross-National Study of Heterosexual and Homosexual Men and Women: An Examination of Biological and Cultural Influences". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 36 (2): 193–208. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9151-2. ISSN 1573-2800. PMID 17380374.
  10. ^ a b Penton-Voak, Ian S.; Perrett, David I. (2001-01-01), Male facial attractiveness: Perceived personality and shifting female preferences for male traits across the menstrual cycle, Advances in the Study of Behavior, vol. 30, Academic Press, pp. 219–259, doi:10.1016/s0065-3454(01)80008-5, ISBN 978-0-12-004530-3, retrieved 2025-11-23
  11. ^ Baudouin, Jean-Yves; Tiberghien, Guy (2004-11-01). "Symmetry, averageness, and feature size in the facial attractiveness of women". Acta Psychologica. 117 (3): 313–332. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.07.002. ISSN 0001-6918. PMID 15500809.
  12. ^ Hume, Deborah K; Montgomerie, Robert (2001-03-01). "Facial attractiveness signals different aspects of "quality" in women and men". Evolution and Human Behavior. 22 (2): 93–112. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00065-9. ISSN 1090-5138. PMID 11282308.
  13. ^ Thornhill, Randy; Gangestad, Steven W. (1993). "Human facial beauty: Averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance". Human Nature. 4 (3): 237–269. doi:10.1007/BF02692201. ISSN 1045-6767. PMID 24214366.
  14. ^ Møller, A. P.; Swaddle, J. P. (1997). Asymmetry, developmental stability, and evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  15. ^ Rhodes, Gillian; Yoshikawa, Sakiko; Clark, Alison; Lee, Kieran; McKay, Ryan; Akamatsu, Shigeru (2001-05-01). "Attractiveness of Facial Averageness and Symmetry in Non-Western Cultures: In Search of Biologically Based Standards of Beauty". Perception. 30 (5): 611–625. doi:10.1068/p3123. ISSN 0301-0066. PMID 11430245.
  16. ^ Curran, James P.; Lippold, Stephen (1975). "The effects of physical attraction and attitude similarity on attraction in dating dyads". Journal of Personality. 43 (3): 528–539. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1975.tb00720.x. ISSN 0022-3506.
  17. ^ a b Thornhill, Randy; Gangestad, Steven W (1994-09-01). "Human Fluctuating Asymmetry and Sexual Behavior". Psychological Science. 5 (5): 297–302. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00629.x. ISSN 0956-7976.
  18. ^ a b Symons, D (1995). "Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness". In Abramson, P. R.; Pinkerton, S. D. (eds.). Sexual nature/sexual culture. University of Chicago Press. pp. 80–118.
  19. ^ Tybur, Joshua M.; Gangestad, Steven W. (2011-12-12). "Mate preferences and infectious disease: theoretical considerations and evidence in humans". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 366 (1583): 3375–3388. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0136. PMC 3189358. PMID 22042915.
  20. ^ Stephen, Ian D.; Law Smith, Miriam J.; Stirrat, Michael R.; Perrett, David I. (2009). "Facial Skin Coloration Affects Perceived Health of Human Faces". International Journal of Primatology. 30 (6): 845–857. doi:10.1007/s10764-009-9380-z. ISSN 0164-0291. PMC 2780675. PMID 19946602.
  21. ^ a b c Thornhill, Randy; Grammer, Karl (1999-03-01). "The Body and Face of Woman: One Ornament that Signals Quality?". Evolution and Human Behavior. 20 (2): 105–120. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00044-0. ISSN 1090-5138.
  22. ^ a b c Thornhill, Randy; MøLler, Anders Pape (1997). "Developmental Stability, Disease and Medicine". Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 72 (4) S0006323197005082: 497–548. doi:10.1017/S0006323197005082 (inactive 24 November 2025).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2025 (link)
  23. ^ a b Rhodes, Gillian; Jeffery, Linda; Watson, Tamara L.; Clifford, Colin W.G.; Nakayama, Ken (2003-11-01). "Fitting the mind to the World: Face Adaptation and Attractiveness Aftereffects". Psychological Science. 14 (6): 558–566. doi:10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1465.x. ISSN 0956-7976. PMID 14629686.
  24. ^ Fink, Bernhard; Grammer, Karl; Thornhill, Randy (2001). "Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness in relation to skin texture and color". Journal of Comparative Psychology. 115 (1): 92–99. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.115.1.92. ISSN 0735-7036. PMID 11334223.
  25. ^ a b c Hillgarth, N.; Wingfield, J. C. (1997). "Testosterone and immunosuppression in vertebrates: implications for parasite-mediated sexual selection". Parasites and pathogens: effects on host hormones and behavior. Boston, MA: Springer US.
  26. ^ Folstad, Ivar; Karter, Andrew John (1992). "Parasites, Bright Males, and the Immunocompetence Handicap". The American Naturalist. 139 (3): 603–622. doi:10.1086/285346. ISSN 0003-0147.
  27. ^ a b c d e f Buss, David M. (1989). "Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 12 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00023992. ISSN 0140-525X.
  28. ^ a b c d e f g h Walter, Kathryn V.; Conroy-Beam, Daniel; Buss, David M.; Asao, Kelly; Sorokowska, Agnieszka; Sorokowski, Piotr; Aavik, Toivo; Akello, Grace; Alhabahba, Mohammad Madallh; Alm, Charlotte; Amjad, Naumana; Anjum, Afifa; Atama, Chiemezie S.; Atamtürk Duyar, Derya; Ayebare, Richard (2020-04-01). "Sex Differences in Mate Preferences Across 45 Countries: A Large-Scale Replication". Psychological Science. 31 (4): 408–423. doi:10.1177/0956797620904154. hdl:2078.1/228421. ISSN 0956-7976. PMID 32196435.
  29. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Buss, David M.; Barnes, Michael (1986). "Preferences in human mate selection". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50 (3): 559–570. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559. ISSN 1939-1315.
  30. ^ Stewart-Williams, Steve; Thomas, Andrew G. (2013-07-01). "The Ape That Thought It Was a Peacock: Does Evolutionary Psychology Exaggerate Human Sex Differences?". Psychological Inquiry. 24 (3): 137–168. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2013.804899. ISSN 1047-840X.
  31. ^ a b Mulder, Monique Borgerhoff; Beheim, Bret A. (2011-02-12). "Understanding the nature of wealth and its effects on human fitness". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 366 (1563): 344–356. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0231. PMC 3013473. PMID 21199839.
  32. ^ a b Nelissen, Rob M. A.; Meijers, Marijn H. C. (2011-09-01). "Social benefits of luxury brands as costly signals of wealth and status". Evolution and Human Behavior. 32 (5): 343–355. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.12.002. ISSN 1090-5138.
  33. ^ a b Von Rueden, C. (2014). "The roots and fruits of social status in small-scale human societies". The psychology of social status. New York, NY: Springer New York. pp. 179–200.
  34. ^ Buss, David M.; Abbott, Max; Angleitner, Alois; Asherian, Armen; Biaggio, Angela; Blanco-Villasenor, Angel; Bruchon-Schweitzer, M.; Ch'U, Hai-Yuan; Czapinski, Janusz; Deraad, Boele; Ekehammar, Bo; El Lohamy, Noha; Fioravanti, Mario; Georgas, James; Gjerde, Per (1990-03-01). "International Preferences in Selecting Mates: A Study of 37 Cultures". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 21 (1): 5–47. doi:10.1177/0022022190211001. hdl:2027.42/67686. ISSN 0022-0221.
  35. ^ Jankowiak, W (1997). Romantic Passion: A Universal Experience?. New York: Columbia University Press.
  36. ^ Buss, D. M. (1988). "Love acts: the evolutionary biology of love". In Sternberg, R; Barnes, M (eds.). The Psychology of Love. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. pp. 100–118.
  37. ^ Buss, D. M. (2018). "The evolution of love in humans". In Sternberg, R (ed.). The New Psychology of Love. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  38. ^ Frank, R. H. (1988). Passions Within Reason: The Strategic Role of the Emotions. New York: Norton.
  39. ^ Greengross, Gil; Miller, Geoffrey (2011-07-01). "Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males". Intelligence. 39 (4): 188–192. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2011.03.006. ISSN 0160-2896.
  40. ^ a b c d e Trivers, R. L. (1972). "Parental investment and sexual selection". In Campbell, B (ed.). Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine. pp. 136–179.
  41. ^ a b c d e Feingold, Alan (1992). "Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model". Psychological Bulletin. 112 (1): 125–139. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.125. ISSN 1939-1455. PMID 1388281.
  42. ^ a b c d e Thornhill, Randy; Gangestad, Steven W.; Thornhill, Randy; Gangestad, Steven W.; Thornhill, Randy; Gangestad, Steven W.; Thornhill, Randy; Gangestad, Steven W. (1999-12-01). "Facial attractiveness". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 3 (12): 452–460. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01403-5. ISSN 1364-6613. PMID 10562724.
  43. ^ a b c d e Folstad, Ivar; Karter, Andrew John (1992). "Parasites, Bright Males, and the Immunocompetence Handicap". The American Naturalist. 139 (3): 603–622. doi:10.1086/285346. ISSN 0003-0147.
  44. ^ a b Booth, A.; Dabbs, J. M. (1993-12-01). "Testosterone and Men's Marriages". Social Forces. 72 (2): 463–477. doi:10.1093/sf/72.2.463. ISSN 0037-7732.
  45. ^ a b Gangestad, Steven W.; Buss, David M. (1993-03-01). "Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences". Ethology and Sociobiology. 14 (2): 89–96. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(93)90009-7. ISSN 0162-3095.
  46. ^ a b c DeBruine, Lisa M.; Jones, Benedict C.; Crawford, John R.; Welling, Lisa L. M.; Little, Anthony C. (2010-03-17). "The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: cross-cultural variation in women's preferences for masculinized male faces". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 277 (1692): 2405–2410. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.2184. PMC 2894896. PMID 20236978.
  47. ^ a b Little, Anthony C.; DeBruine, Lisa M.; Jones, Benedict C. (2011). "Exposure to visual cues of pathogen contagion changes preferences for masculinity and symmetry in opposite-sex faces". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 278 (1714): 2032–2039. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1925. PMC 3107643. PMID 21123269.
  48. ^ Frederick, David A.; Haselton, Martie G. (2007-08-01). "Why Is Muscularity Sexy? Tests of the Fitness Indicator Hypothesis". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 33 (8): 1167–1183. doi:10.1177/0146167207303022. ISSN 0146-1672. PMID 17578932.
  49. ^ a b c d e f Hughes, Susan M.; Gallup, Gordon G. (2003-05-01). "Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: Shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios". Evolution and Human Behavior. 24 (3): 173–178. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00149-6. ISSN 1090-5138.
  50. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Buss, D. M.; Schmitt, D. P. (1993). "Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating". Psychological Review. 100 (2): 204–232. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.
  51. ^ Jones, Benedict C.; Hahn, Amanda C.; Fisher, Claire I.; Wang, Hongyi; Kandrik, Michal; Han, Chengyang; Fasolt, Vanessa; Morrison, Danielle; Lee, Anthony J.; Holzleitner, Iris J.; O'Shea, Kieran J.; Roberts, S. Craig; Little, Anthony C.; DeBruine, Lisa M. (2018-06-01). "No Compelling Evidence that Preferences for Facial Masculinity Track Changes in Women's Hormonal Status". Psychological Science. 29 (6): 996–1005. doi:10.1177/0956797618760197. ISSN 0956-7976. PMC 6099988. PMID 29708849.
  52. ^ Kenrick, Douglas T.; Groth, Gary E.; Trost, Melanie R.; Sadalla, Edward K. (1993). "Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 64 (6): 951–969. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.951. ISSN 1939-1315.
  53. ^ Li, Norman P. "Mate Preference Necessities in Long- and Short-Term Mating: People Prioritize in Themselves What Their Mates Prioritize in Them". ink.library.smu.edu.sg. Retrieved 2025-11-22.
  54. ^ Valentine, Katherine A.; Li, Norman P.; Penke, Lars; Perrett, David I. (2014-03-01). "Judging a Man by the Width of His Face: The Role of Facial Ratios and Dominance in Mate Choice at Speed-Dating Events". Psychological Science. 25 (3): 806–811. doi:10.1177/0956797613511823. ISSN 0956-7976. PMID 24458269.
  55. ^ Muggleton, Naomi K.; Fincher, Corey L. (2017-06-01). "Unrestricted sexuality promotes distinctive short- and long-term mate preferences in women". Personality and Individual Differences. 111: 169–173. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.054. ISSN 0191-8869.
  56. ^ Simpson, Jeffry A.; Gangestad, Steven W. (1992). "Sociosexuality and Romantic Partner Choice". Journal of Personality. 60 (1): 31–51. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00264.x. ISSN 1467-6494.
  57. ^ Booth, A.; Dabbs, J. M. (1993-12-01). "Testosterone and Men's Marriages". Social Forces. 72 (2): 463–477. doi:10.1093/sf/72.2.463. ISSN 0037-7732.
  58. ^ Gangestad, Steven W.; Simpson, Jeffry A. (2000). "The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 23 (4): 573–587. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0000337X. ISSN 1469-1825. PMID 11301543.
  59. ^ a b c d e f g h i Symons, D (1979). The Evolution of Human Sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
  60. ^ a b Marlowe, Frank W. (2004-12-01). "Mate preferences among Hadza hunter-gatherers". Human Nature. 15 (4): 365–376. doi:10.1007/s12110-004-1014-8. ISSN 1936-4776. PMID 26189412.
  61. ^ a b Buss, D. M. (1989). "Conflict between the sexes: strategic interference and the evocation of anger and upset". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 56 (5): 735–747. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.735. PMID 2724067.
  62. ^ Kenrick, Douglas T.; Sadalla, Edward K.; Groth, Gary; Trost, Melanie R. (1990). "Evolution, Traits, and the Stages of Human Courtship: Qualifying the Parental Investment Model". Journal of Personality. 58 (1): 97–116. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00909.x. ISSN 1467-6494.
  63. ^ Fales, Melissa R.; Frederick, David A.; Garcia, Justin R.; Gildersleeve, Kelly A.; Haselton, Martie G.; Fisher, Helen E. (2016-01-01). "Mating markets and bargaining hands: Mate preferences for attractiveness and resources in two national U.S. studies". Personality and Individual Differences. 88: 78–87. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.041. ISSN 0191-8869.
  64. ^ Wang, Guanlin; Cao, Minxuan; Sauciuvenaite, Justina; Bissland, Ruth; Hacker, Megan; Hambly, Catherine; Vaanholt, Lobke M.; Niu, Chaoqun; Faries, Mark D.; Speakman, John R. (2018-03-01). "Different impacts of resources on opposite sex ratings of physical attractiveness by males and females". Evolution and Human Behavior. 39 (2): 220–225. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.12.008. ISSN 1090-5138.
  65. ^ Hitsch, Günter J.; Hortaçsu, Ali; Ariely, Dan (2010-12-01). "What makes you click?—Mate preferences in online dating". Quantitative Marketing and Economics. 8 (4): 393–427. doi:10.1007/s11129-010-9088-6. ISSN 1573-711X.
  66. ^ a b Mulder, Monique Borgerhoff (1990-10-01). "Kipsigis women's preferences for wealthy men: evidence for female choice in mammals?". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 27 (4): 255–264. doi:10.1007/BF00164897. ISSN 1432-0762. PMID 12283589.
  67. ^ a b Fieder, Martin; Huber, Susanne (2007-08-28). "Parental age difference and offspring count in humans". Biology Letters. 3 (6): 689–691. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0324. PMC 2391207. PMID 17725971.
  68. ^ Buss, David M.; Shackelford, Todd K.; Kirkpatrick, Lee A.; Larsen, Randy J. (2001). "A Half Century of Mate Preferences: The Cultural Evolution of Values". Journal of Marriage and Family. 63 (2): 491–503. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00491.x. ISSN 1741-3737.
  69. ^ Dunn, Michael J.; Searle, Robert (2010). "Effect of manipulated prestige-car ownership on both sex attractiveness ratings". British Journal of Psychology. 101 (1): 69–80. doi:10.1348/000712609X417319. ISSN 2044-8295. PMID 19302732.
  70. ^ Minervini, Bibiana Paez; McAndrew, Francis T. (2006-05-01). "The Mating Strategies and Mate Preferences of Mail Order Brides". Cross-Cultural Research. 40 (2): 111–129. doi:10.1177/1069397105277237. ISSN 1069-3971.
  71. ^ Bokek-Cohen, Yaarit; Peres, Yochanan; Kanazawa, Satoshi (2008). "Rational choice and evolutionary psychology as explanations for mate selectivity". Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology. 2 (2): 42–55. doi:10.1037/h0099356. ISSN 1933-5377.
  72. ^ Courtiol, Alexandre; Raymond, Michel; Godelle, Bernard; Ferdy, Jean-Baptiste (2010). "Mate Choice and Human Stature: Homogamy as a Unified Framework for Understanding Mating Preferences". Evolution. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.00985.x. PMID 20199563.
  73. ^ Pierce, Charles A. (1996-01-01). "Body Height and Romantic Attraction: A Meta-Analytic Test of the Male-Taller Norm". Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal. 24 (2): 143–149. doi:10.2224/sbp.1996.24.2.143. ISSN 0301-2212.
  74. ^ a b Pawlowski, Boguslaw; Koziel, Slawomir (2002-03-01). "The impact of traits offered in personal advertisements on response rates". Evolution and Human Behavior. 23 (2): 139–149. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00092-7. ISSN 1090-5138.
  75. ^ a b Brewer, Gayle; Riley, Charlene (2009-07-01). "Height, Relationship Satisfaction, Jealousy, and Mate Retention". Evolutionary Psychology. 7 (3) 147470490900700310. doi:10.1177/147470490900700310. ISSN 1474-7049.
  76. ^ Mazur, Allan; Halpern, Carolyn; Udry, J. Richard (1994-03-01). "Dominant looking male teenagers copulate earlier". Ethology and Sociobiology. 15 (2): 87–94. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(94)90019-1. ISSN 0162-3095.
  77. ^ a b c d e f g Kenrick, Douglas T.; Keefe, Richard C. (1992). "Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 15 (1): 75–91. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00067595. ISSN 1469-1825.
  78. ^ a b Low, Bobbi S. (1991-11-01). "Reproductive life in nineteenth century Sweden: An evolutionary perspective on demographic phenomena". Ethology and Sociobiology. 12 (6): 411–448. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(91)90024-K. ISSN 0162-3095.
  79. ^ Petersen, Jennifer L.; Hyde, Janet Shibley (2010). "A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007". Psychological Bulletin. 136 (1): 21–38. doi:10.1037/a0017504. ISSN 1939-1455.
  80. ^ Galperin, Andrew; Haselton, Martie G.; Frederick, David A.; Poore, Joshua; von Hippel, William; Buss, David M.; Gonzaga, Gian C. (2013-10-01). "Sexual Regret: Evidence for Evolved Sex Differences". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 42 (7): 1145–1161. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-0019-3. ISSN 1573-2800. PMID 23179233.
  81. ^ Bendixen, Mons; Asao, Kelly; Wyckoff, Joy P.; Buss, David M.; Kennair, Leif Edward Ottesen (2017-10-01). "Sexual regret in US and Norway: Effects of culture and individual differences in religiosity and mating strategy". Personality and Individual Differences. 116: 246–251. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.054. ISSN 0191-8869.
  82. ^ Kennair, Leif Edward Ottesen; Wyckoff, Joy P.; Asao, Kelly; Buss, David M.; Bendixen, Mons (2018-06-01). "Why do women regret casual sex more than men do?". Personality and Individual Differences. 127: 61–67. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.044. ISSN 0191-8869.
  83. ^ Kennair, Leif Edward Ottesen; Bendixen, Mons; Buss, David M. (2016-12-01). "Sexual Regret: Tests of Competing Explanations of Sex Differences". Evolutionary Psychology. 14 (4) 1474704916682903. doi:10.1177/1474704916682903. hdl:11250/2652240. ISSN 1474-7049. PMC 10480871. PMID 28024408.
  84. ^ Clark, Russell D.; Hatfield, Elaine (1989-08-07). "Gender Differences in Receptivity to Sexual Offers". Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality. 2 (1): 39–55. doi:10.1300/J056v02n01_04. ISSN 0890-7064.
  85. ^ Hald, Gert Martin; Høgh-Olesen, Henrik (2010-11-01). "Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender". Evolution and Human Behavior. 31 (6): 453–458. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.07.004. ISSN 1090-5138.
  86. ^ Schützwohl, Achim; Fuchs, Amrei; McKibbin, William F.; Shackelford, Todd K. (2009-09-01). "How Willing Are You to Accept Sexual Requests from Slightly Unattractive to Exceptionally Attractive Imagined Requestors?". Human Nature. 20 (3): 282–293. doi:10.1007/s12110-009-9067-3. ISSN 1936-4776.
  87. ^ Haselton, Martie G.; Buss, David M.; Oubaid, Viktor; Angleitner, Alois (2005-01-01). "Sex, Lies, and Strategic Interference: The Psychology of Deception Between the Sexes". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 31 (1): 3–23. doi:10.1177/0146167204271303. ISSN 0146-1672. PMID 15574658.
  88. ^ Jonason, Peter K.; Buss, David M. (2012-04-01). "Avoiding entangling commitments: Tactics for implementing a short-term mating strategy". Personality and Individual Differences. 52 (5): 606–610. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.015. ISSN 0191-8869.
  89. ^ Buss, David Michael; Schmitt, David P. (2011-05-01). "Evolutionary Psychology and Feminism". Sex Roles. 64 (9): 768–787. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3. ISSN 1573-2762.
  90. ^ Lippa, Richard A. (2009-10-01). "Sex Differences in Sex Drive, Sociosexuality, and Height across 53 Nations: Testing Evolutionary and Social Structural Theories". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 38 (5): 631–651. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9242-8. ISSN 1573-2800.
  91. ^ Schmitt, David P. (2005). "Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 28 (2): 247–275. doi:10.1017/S0140525X05000051. ISSN 0140-525X. PMID 16201459.
  92. ^ a b Goetz, Cari D.; Easton, Judith A.; Lewis, David M. G.; Buss, David M. (2012-07-01). "Sexual exploitability: observable cues and their link to sexual attraction". Evolution and Human Behavior. 33 (4): 417–426. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.12.004. ISSN 1090-5138.
  93. ^ a b Lewis, David M. G.; Easton, Judith A.; Goetz, Cari D.; Buss, David M. (2012-01-01). "Exploitative male mating strategies: Personality, mating orientation, and relationship status". Personality and Individual Differences. 52 (2): 139–143. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.09.017. ISSN 0191-8869.
  94. ^ Alexander, R. D.; Noonan, K. M. (1979). Evolutionary biology and human social behavior: An anthropological perspective. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press. pp. 436–453.
  95. ^ a b c d Buss, D. M. (1987). "Sex differences in human mate selection criteria: An evolutionary perspective". In Crawford, C. (ed.). Sociobiology and psychology: Ideas, issues, and application. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 335–352.
  96. ^ a b c Sugiyama, L. S. (2005). Buss, D. M. (ed.). The handbook of evolutionary psychology. New York: Wiley.
  97. ^ a b Andrews, Talbot M.; Lukaszewski, Aaron W.; Simmons, Zachary L.; Bleske-Rechek, April (2017-07-01). "Cue-based estimates of reproductive value explain women's body attractiveness". Evolution and Human Behavior. 38 (4): 461–467. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.04.002. ISSN 1090-5138.
  98. ^ a b Garza, Ray; Heredia, Roberto R.; Cieslicka, Anna B. (2016-03-01). "Male and Female Perception of Physical Attractiveness: An Eye Movement Study". Evolutionary Psychology. 14 (1) 1474704916631614. doi:10.1177/1474704916631614. ISSN 1474-7049. PMC 10426851.
  99. ^ Sugiyama, L. S. (2005). Buss, D. M. (ed.). The handbook of evolutionary psychology. New York: Wiley.
  100. ^ Rhodes, Gillian (2006). "The Evolutionary Psychology of Facial Beauty". Annual Review of Psychology. 57: 199–226. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190208. ISSN 0066-4308. PMID 16318594.
  101. ^ Singh, Devendra (1995). "Female judgment of male attractiveness and desirability for relationships: Role of waist-to-hip ratio and financial status". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 69 (6): 1089–1101. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1089. ISSN 1939-1315.
  102. ^ Singh, Devendra; Dixson, B. J.; Jessop, T. S.; Morgan, B.; Dixson, A. F. (2010-05-01). "Cross-cultural consensus for waist–hip ratio and women's attractiveness". Evolution and Human Behavior. 31 (3): 176–181. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.09.001. ISSN 1090-5138.
  103. ^ Karremans, Johan C.; Frankenhuis, Willem E.; Arons, Sander (2010-05-01). "Blind men prefer a low waist-to-hip ratio". Evolution and Human Behavior. 31 (3): 182–186. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.10.001. ISSN 1090-5138.
  104. ^ a b c Conroy-Beam, Daniel; Buss, David M. (2019). "Why is age so important in human mating? Evolved age preferences and their influences on multiple mating behaviors". Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences. 13 (2): 127–157. doi:10.1037/ebs0000127. ISSN 2330-2933.
  105. ^ Betzig, L (1992). "Roman polygyny". Ethology & Sociobiology. 13 (5–6): 309–349. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(92)90008-R.
  106. ^ Voland, Eckart; Engel, Claudia (1990). "Female Choice in Humans: A Conditional Mate Selection Strategy of the Krummhörn Women (Germany, 1720–1874)". Ethology. 84 (2): 144–154. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1990.tb00791.x. ISSN 1439-0310.
  107. ^ Borgerhoff Mulder, M (1988). "Kipsigis bridewealth payments". In Betzig, L; Borgerhoff Mulder, M; Turke, P (eds.). Human Reproductive Behaviour: A Darwinian Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 65–82.
  108. ^ Røskaft, Eivin; Wara, Annelise; Viken, Åslaug (1992-09-01). "Reproductive success in relation to resource-access and parental age in a small Norwegian farming parish during the period 1700–1900". Ethology and Sociobiology. 13 (5): 443–461. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(92)90012-S. ISSN 0162-3095.
  109. ^ von Rueden, Christopher; Gurven, Michael; Kaplan, Hillard (2010-12-08). "Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 278 (1715): 2223–2232. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.2145. PMC 3107626. PMID 21147798.
  110. ^ Guttentag, M; Secord, P. F. (1983). Too Many Women? The Sex Ratio Question. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  111. ^ Sohn, Kitae (2017-01-01). "Men's revealed preference for their mates' ages". Evolution and Human Behavior. 38 (1): 58–62. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.06.007. ISSN 1090-5138.
  112. ^ Cronk, Lee; Dunham, Bria (2007-12-01). "Amounts Spent on Engagement Rings Reflect Aspects of Male and Female Mate Quality". Human Nature. 18 (4): 329–333. doi:10.1007/s12110-007-9018-9. ISSN 1936-4776. PMID 26181310.
  113. ^ Buss, David M.; Shackelford, Todd K. (1997). "From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 72 (2): 346–361. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.346. ISSN 1939-1315. PMID 9107005.
  114. ^ Gil-Burmann, Carlos; Peláez, Fernando; Sánchez, Susana (2002-12-01). "Mate choice differences according to sex and age". Human Nature. 13 (4): 493–508. doi:10.1007/s12110-002-1005-6. ISSN 1936-4776.
  115. ^ Waynforth, David; Dunbar, R. I. M. (1995). "Conditional Mate Choice Strategies in Humans: Evidence from 'Lonely Hearts' Advertisements". Behaviour. 132 (9/10): 755–779. doi:10.1163/156853995X00135. ISSN 0005-7959. JSTOR 4535297.
  116. ^ a b c Buss, D. M. (2015). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
  117. ^ Henrich, Joseph; Boyd, Robert; Richerson, Peter J. (2012-03-05). "The puzzle of monogamous marriage". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 367 (1589): 657–669. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0290. PMC 3260845. PMID 22271782.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mating_preferences&oldid=1325301055"